Queue incoming fanboys screaming about it not counting because it is a simulator.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Microsoft Flight Simulator is the new “Crysis”, current-gen CPUs unable to offer 60fps on High/Ultra
- Thread starter Poetic Injustice
- Start date
Queue incoming fanboys screaming about it not counting because it is a simulator.
People seriously underestimate how nice it is to design around a single configuration.
I have a 10900X, 2080TI, 64GB RAM and I play in 1440P, the game automatically set everything to ultra but I'm lucky if my FPS stays in the mid thirties. I see 25% CPU usage and 50% GPU usage.
The game is doing a hell of a lot more than just static graphics at a huge distance. The underlying sim, weather systems, live data, live traffic all at the same time. No single game/sim has ever had this much in a base game before, or looked as good. I've had so many "holy shit, that's beautiful" moments and I'm running on old gear at medium settings. MS has said this game is part of a 10 years plan to so optimizations are in the works as well.
The game's built-in fps viewer also tells you where the bottleneck is. My Ryzen 5 1600X and GTX 1080ti, I get 24fps at 1080p/ultra at SeaTac airport, one of the hand-crafted airports. It flip-flops between blaming my GPU and the "main thread", by which my guess is the speed of one cpu core. At 4k/ultra, it of course blamed my GPU as the primary bottleneck.
Note, where you fly makes a HUGE difference, I was getting 40fps over the hills of New Zealand. Also weather - clouds are expensive - and other planes flying around.
Note, where you fly makes a HUGE difference, I was getting 40fps over the hills of New Zealand. Also weather - clouds are expensive - and other planes flying around.
Last edited:
I'm close to the same except I have a 1070. It takes a long time to load and even once the flight loads up it takes a minute for my PC to catch up. Right now I'm on Medium.
They actually talked about this, the optimizations they are making for the XBox One version aren't just dropping quality settings but improving the game code, they said they'll be able to patch those same optimizations to the pc version and give it a nice performance boost.
DX12 won't help if the game itself is (mostly) single threaded. It helps with parallelization of the renderer but this matters only when the rest of the engine isn't limited by single CPU thread performance.
I think that they'll add DX12 option later but I will be surprised if this will actually help with performance in this case.
I see multiple articles mentioning a future transition to dx12, and I suspect given the long term nature of a Microsoft Flight Sim game, that it will be optimized eventually. That said if you find the current state unacceptable you should definitely not buy it until it is..
This is even more proof that buying at launch doesn't make sense. Why would I pay 60€ for the game in this state when I can buy it later, in a better state, for cheaper?
Yeah, Steve from Hardware Unboxed just posted his video on the game and found the same thing. He said he's not going to include the game in CPU benchmarks as a result, but it's a good GPU benchmark.
Also, flying around NYC with a 2080Ti got him around 17fps at 4K lol
Nope i mean Very High, a step below Ultra. This game can kill my 3900X when i stream if i don't disable my UI on OBS :|
I can't choose very high in the main screen? There is only low, med, high and ultra for me. I haven't looked into the advanced settings where very high surely is for all the options hmm. Strange.
Also streaming from the same computer explains it. We will now be at this part this generation again where you will need a streaming station (like me) or you will get bad FPS for many games. I can see that coming again.
This is where I'm at. With my 3600, 1070, 16GB the game recommended high settings. I started out in 4k just to see how bad my aging gpu would chug and was surprised how well it ran. I turned on the fps counter in game bar and was getting 22-26 for the most part. The thing is when flying in a straight line it's not that noticable. In third person mode when moving the camera around you see it for sure but even then it wasn't unplayable or anything. At 1080p same settings I was getting 50+ but between the two I definitely prefer 4k. The terrain and objects in the distance almost look real. The youtube videos look good but it's even better playing it due the low bitrate or compression or whatever it is.
I've only put in an hour so far and only flew over medium size cities. Something like New York will probably not perform as well.
I guess something similar would be ac7 lol, but that game wasn't amazing neither.
Dunno, i've the game set to italian and we have very low, medium, very high and ultra. Maybe a translation difference.
Not really surprised given that FSX was basically a 20-30 FPS experience if you played it with any number of mods.
This will be it. Very High = High in Germany
Doesn't make a lot of sense skipping High :P
Your inability to understand the context of what was being talked about is impressive.
Welcome to my ignore list.
Why do people tell you, they are putting you on their ignore lists?
Would probably be easier to simply ignore the person.
But aye do you.
I don't think those games are comparible, other than the plane part. Even on full on easy with all assists, MSFS is doing more sitting at an airport than AC7 in it's whole game.
But someone told me I can just turn down resolution in games and get 60fps guaranteed
Tho I'm curious, I have a 9700k and have been feeling envious of Ryzen owners, if this doesn't spread load very well I wonder if my CPU might do a decent job with this game.
Tho I'm curious, I have a 9700k and have been feeling envious of Ryzen owners, if this doesn't spread load very well I wonder if my CPU might do a decent job with this game.
Here's what mind looks like near the landing pattern in Tampa.
3700x
2080ti
32GB RAM
NVME m.2 970 EVO
1440p res scale 150
all traffic and ai online, and set to 50
ultra settings with all maxed on graphics option page
My cores are being put to work, but not in so much as I hoped would increase the framerate. Is the game using the cores to the fullest it needs? I had to increase the graphics settings and res scale to even get the GPU to get above 60%.
3700x
2080ti
32GB RAM
NVME m.2 970 EVO
1440p res scale 150
all traffic and ai online, and set to 50
ultra settings with all maxed on graphics option page
My cores are being put to work, but not in so much as I hoped would increase the framerate. Is the game using the cores to the fullest it needs? I had to increase the graphics settings and res scale to even get the GPU to get above 60%.
No need to be envious imo.
9700k is in many games the better option and it should be here too. Especially overclocked,
I'm surprised so many posters are putting this much stock into DX12 in the first place. How frequently do we see a desirable implementation of DX12 for a title that was originally designed for DX11?
There's always comment's like this, do you even understand how difficult it is to make a game multithreaded, even in a simple game its really complicated to do and this game is inordinately more complicated. And even if you perfectly multithread the game there is still always going to be one thread that works harder because it has to manage all the other threads.
The fact this game does what it does looks like it does and runs as well as it does is a testament to how fucking well it runs. Looking at Task Manager graphs and somehow concluding that this game is badly optimised is fucking nonsense.
I guess so, I shouldn't expect too much when you are on the ground for a flight game. I have only checked out my city which isn't the biggest to begin with....
Mine cost about 3400$ that I built a couple months ago and it's running this like a dream. Have a 2080 TI and Ryzen 3950X. If you were smart tho and waited to built tell like next month for the same price you can get a beefier PC with the 3000 series that releases soon
Yeah, it's very likely that performance will improve over time, but I think the DX12 implementation is more about running ray-tracing (DXR) than improved CPU performance.
Depends on how you compare "destroys" and "sleep". If one core is running at 80% and the other seven are running at 70%, does that qualify?
And yes, that's what I'm seeing on my rig. While one core is running higher than the others, the rest of them are by no means "sleeping".
If you have an example of any program that spreads its workload absolutely evenly across all available cores, I'd love to see it.
Back to the topic, yes, the sim is the new Crysis, not because it's having the same problems that Crytek had back in the day, but simply that this is the new benchmark meme. "Yeah, but can it run Flight Simulator?"
Also remember that this was made without considering the CPU limitations of the current-gen consoles, which is why CPUs haven't mattered in gaming much for the better part of a decade. Along comes something that actually uses modern CPUs to their full capacity, and people start crying that it's "unoptimized"... SMH.
Hardware Unboxed mentions the game limits itself to 4 cores. With my 3900x that's another 8 cores "sleeping"
What does it do on your system, then? Because it's using all eight cores on mine. I'll trust my own eyes over YouTube any day.
Yes it doesn't run with absolute flawless performance and I don't anyone expected to. A game like this doesn't necessarily need to either.
I'm sure there will be tweaks to performance in upcoming patches. Let's not get crazy quite yet.
I'm sure there will be tweaks to performance in upcoming patches. Let's not get crazy quite yet.
This so much. Even as a non-tech person I've seen more than enough to understand that parallelization in games is in an incredibly difficult matter and there are limits to what you can do (especially on a budget that obviously won't be anywhere near of the top of the line contemporaries).
Also worth noting that while yes it's within the realm of possibility that DX12 could potentially help, as far as I know there's also nothing to say for sure that it's the render (thread) that's the bottleneck here. Not sure what the case is here, but I would guess that render runs on a different thread altogether (and behind game thread), so that potentially no matter how much you optimize that the game wouldn't run any ms faster on the screen. It's not out of the question to believe that unlike the contemporaries, this is a game not limited by render and thus going DX11 first makes every sense.
EDIT: And obviously the opposite could be true as well, for some reason it's the render thread that's the bottleneck and then no matter how you otherwise get core usage better, no performance impact would be seen and then something like DX12 could help a ton (but in that case I would reckon that would have been what they would have shipped first, unless the technical/schedule pains would've been too much for now).
Last edited: